House Judiciary Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (1)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB750
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB750”
|
Pre-2017 bill |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 4, 2026
Speaker 1
0:00
Does permit. We want to turn at this time to Chairman Williams, who will present the Public Safety Improvement Act and call upon those who are with him to give us further detail. Chairman Williams. Thank you,
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
0:20
Vice Chair Wilkins. Members of House Judiciary, I don't see anyone else
who's not a member here. As you know,
the Prisoner Reform Bill has been an interbranch bipartisan effort for
some 18 months now, and what you have before you is a result of a number of hours of hard work by a number of folks around this table, not necessarily including myself since I joined this process very late in the game. As you know, this bill has passed out of the Senate Committee, and it is going to the Senate floor. I'm sorry I've not gotten an update. But today's meeting is simply to try to answer any questions that you have. There will not be a formal presentation, but I have a number of people who are here with
me who have been a part of this process for a long time, and they are here to help answer any questions that you have. So please take this opportunity to ask any questions that you might. If you don't mind, Mr. Vice Chair, I'd like to introduce my question-answerers today. Please do. First, we have Judge Gary Arnold, who is a circuit judge in Saline County. Judge Arnold has been a hard worker on this committee and provided a significant amount of insight, particularly from a judicial perspective, and he's with us.
And we have my sheriff, Sheriff Doc Holliday, who keeps us safe in Pulaski County, and we're We're pleased that the Sheriff's Association is endorsing the recommendations of the Pew study in this bill. We're proud to have him with us. We also have with us two hardworking gentlemen who are going to have even more work to do if you pass this bill. First, we have Director David Eberhardt of Department of Community Corrections. And as you know, this bill has a significant focus on parole and probation. And so get a good look at him now because I guarantee you he'll have more gray hair this time next year when we're back here.
We have Mr. Ray Hobbs, who is Director of the Department of Corrections with us. and he might be completely white by the time we get back here next year. We really appreciate the work. In addition to them, we have folks who didn't want to sit with us, but you feel free to call on them at any time. Sandy Moll from the Sentencing Commission, she's in the back of the room with us. And, of course, she's the Executive Director of the Sentencing Commission. Those on House Judiciary, we're used to seeing her. And she's also been a hard worker on this bill, along with her staff at the Sentencing Commission.
You know, some 18 months ago or so, all three branches of government brought, asked Pew, Unchalable Trust, Pew and the states to come in and help us with this process. And
we're pleased to have with us Brian Elderbloom from Pew, who's in the audience back there. And if we need Brian, he has a detailed knowledge of this bill. We'll bring him up if we need him as well. But seated with me at the table, we have Jake Horowitz also from Pew. So with those introductions, I am going to open it up to any questions about the bill that you guys may have.
We will, between all of us, someone here, I believe, probably can answer each question that you have. So we'll be happy to take
Speaker 10
3:28
any questions. All right. Are there questions? Yes. I'm Representative Linda Collins-Smith. One of the questions that I have is I've been called by my sheriff who says that they do not support the bill and that there are other sheriffs as well that do not support it. Have you talked to every sheriff across the state of Arkansas
Speaker 16
3:44
to see if they support this bill? I would encourage Chuck Lang, he's the executive director. I saw Sheriff's Office Day in
Speaker 20
4:09
the right there in terms of who has been spoken to. I can tell you why. Sheriff, if you would turn your mic on. Members of the committee, my name is Chuck Lang. I'm the executive director for Arkansas Sheriffs.
We have cussed and discussed this bill for quite some time. And what I would like to do is just give you the count. We have 75 sheriffs. 51 voted yes. I believe 7 voted no. And somebody do the math real quick. Was that 11? 11 no votes. Somebody do the math. 17 no votes. 17 no votes. 17 who have not responded.
17 have not responded. I get no vote. They did not respond. I sent out facts a couple of times. And by the way, that's not uncommon. That is not uncommon. And I made a statement earlier. When I have a convention, if I have 50 sheriffs there, I've done something. I am ecstatic, and I'm satisfied with that vote, and again, too, there's been so much information, misinformation, but that's the way the vote went down.
Speaker 24
5:17
Thank you. All right. Representative Collin Smith, does that answer?
Speaker 25
5:20
Thank you. All right. Are there any other questions for Mr. Lange while he's at the table?
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
5:25
May I follow up with a question for Mr. Lange? Yes. Mr. Lange, based on your experience in working with the Sheriff's Association, you guys often take position on bills. Sir, is it you all's procedure that when you have a majority of a sheriff to take a position, that means you support the bill? So is it safe to say that you guys support this bill as an association? I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you, sir.
Speaker 20
5:47
But, yes, that is fact. And still that, saying that, each sheriff still can stand alone and yea or nay his particular position. And so that's not uncommon for that to happen. I just want to be correct in saying
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
6:03
that the Sheriff's Association has endorsed the bill. Okay, thank you. Thank you,
Speaker 25
6:08
Mr. Lange. Are there other questions? Yes, Representative Hammer. Mr. Williams, can you tell
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
6:15
us, the prosecutors, where they stand on it?
I know they've been heavily involved in the process, and can you tell me what their position is as we've heard the sheriff's position, please? I
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
6:25
had hoped that one of the prosecutors would be here, but I have been told by the prosecutors that they unanimously endorsed the bill. Are
Speaker 24
6:39
there other questions? Representative Steele. Representative Steele. I've been
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
6:43
discussing this quite a bit with some other folks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I still have a few concerns. I think, first of all, I want to say that the working group and all the folks who have been working on this have done a terrific job of compromising on a whole lot of things from the first draft of this bill. I think that's why the prosecutors have come around. As a former prosecutor myself, I've talked to them quite a bit. I've been to a lot of those meetings, and I think they are happy with the line drawn where it is. I think a lot of them would like to see a few more things done, but due to the compromising process, they can't have it all.
There's one little area that I'm still a little bit concerned about, and I want to discuss it here rather than in committee. is the delivery of marijuana and prescription pills. Just on the floor earlier, we had a long discussion about this prescription drug database. And I think the basis for that program is the fact that we have a major abuse of prescription pills in our communities. We see a lot more deliveries of those than we used to see.
And so I don't know yet what exactly, how this changes delivery of controlled substances when it comes to prescription pills, and I'd like somebody to explain that. I do think I understand how it handles delivery of marijuana. My understanding is now that it will be a, where it is now, any delivery of a usable amount of marijuana is a special Class C felony, a punishment by four years, not less than four years, not more than ten years, I believe. Is that correct, Class C felony? How much is the amount you said? I'm sorry. any usable amount right now, not in the bill, I'm talking about current law,
would it be any usable amount delivery of marijuana? Would it be a class C felony? Punishable by not less than four, not more than
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
8:33
ten years? I think current law is one ounce and above is a class C felony, I believe. I may
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
8:39
be wrong about that. For delivery of controlled substance marijuana? I don't believe there's a – I think you're talking about possession. I'm sorry, possession. Actual delivery of marijuana right now. Any delivery, any drug deal, the dealer gets a Class C felony, punishable by 4 to 10.
Under the new bill, a drug dealer who deals a half an ounce or less would be guilty of a misdemeanor. And I think that's where my concerns come from, because I think that most drug dealers deal in what we call dime sacks and quarter sacks, and these things are not half ounces. So if you have a drug dealer who's selling three or four dime sacks or quarter sacks a day, can completely sustain a business, not work, and make several hundred if not thousands of dollars a week dealing drugs and would not be charged with a felony, wouldn't be guilty of any kind of felony,
including subsequent offenses. So if he's arrested selling to an undercover agent or to a confidential informant selling a quarter sack of marijuana, as they call it, which I understand to be a quarter of an ounce, then that would be a misdemeanor. And I can understand that. I can get on board with that. But if he continues to do so time and time again and he's smart enough to never sell more than a half an ounce, then I don't think we could ever charge a felony. And I have a problem with that.
Am I correct in that? And could you tell
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
10:09
me maybe the rationale behind that? You are correct that this bill, we had to
make broad policy decisions. And remember, we are trying to, when we talk about drug crimes, we are trying to punish those who cause most harm to society more harshly than those who cause less harm, obviously.
And for those who are engaged in a large commercial enterprise, we're actually enhancing their penalties. For those that are selling marijuana in less than, I believe, 14 grams, I believe, more than 14 grams, I think, gets you a Class D felony, I believe. But you have to hit that threshold before that kicks in. We had to make policy decisions and policy recommendations, and it's just the recommendation
of this bill and this working group that that's where the cutoff is, to be quite honest. And it is a product of intense negotiation and discussion, and that's where we had to make the cutoff. You're
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
11:22
that particular policy decision. Could somebody explain to me, because I don't know where it is in the bill, what the changes to a delivery of prescription drugs, hydrocodone, that type of schedule, hydrocodone, Xanax.
I don't know exactly what schedule of drug those would be, but could somebody tell me what the changes to delivery of those would be and how the punishments are
Speaker 52
11:46
changed from current law to the new bill? I'll say I had to look into prescription pills in particular and get back with you and other members of the committee who are curious on that. point out that when the working group tackled controlled substances portions of current statute originally focused only on methamphetamine cocaine and marijuana only touch those three drugs after discussions with members of the
Prosecutors Association they said if we're going to change any of the thresholds the weight thresholds or penalties associated with those three controlled substances we also need to address the other schedules to make them parallel changes so that we don't have some drugs penalties moving this direction and other drug penalties staying the same because that would create disproportionate penalties associated with different scheduled drugs and so the recommendations of the working group that dealt with the other drugs not methamphetamine cocaine or heroin were recommended by the
Prosecutors Association which isn't to say that it's exactly where every member of this group would want but just to let you know that originally work group didn't touch it. Prosecutor said, we want you to make changes that are in keeping with the changes that have been done to the other sections of the controlled substances statutes. And so that's the direction the working group went. I can get back to you on the specifics of the prescription. We haven't focused on it. Maybe Brian
Speaker 15
13:07
can address that. MR. Brian, if you would, come to the table. There's a chair right over here to your left.
Speaker 56
13:15
I think a lot of the prescription drugs are actually Schedule 1 and 2. It depends, of course, on which one you're referring to in particular, but a lot of them are captured in the changes to the Schedule 1 and
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
13:32
2 drugs. Nate, to the extent they are Schedule 1 and Schedule 2, I think on page 53 of the
bill, Section 49, Line 17, I believe that lays it. You asked about delivery, correct? That's correct. I
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
13:43
was curious to know if there's an amount set, a threshold amount like there was in marijuana set for prescription drugs.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
13:49
Under the bill, as I read, 2 grams or more is Class C, 2 grams, or less than 2 grams, 2 grams to 28 grams of Class B, 28 grams to 200 grams of Class A. We probably don't have any pharmacists in here, but what
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
14:06
would a pill of hydrocodone normally be in terms of grams? Does anybody know? Actually, they do have a chemist here.
Jerry Buck
Unverified
14:29
If you would, state your name for the record. My name is Jerry. My name is Jerry Buck. I work at the
Speaker 65
14:39
crime laboratory. I was a drug chemist for 23 years, so I might be able to help out with some of these questions. C-cotton would be a Schedule II. Hydrocodone is usually a Schedule III. Xanax, someone mentioned Xanax, is a Schedule IV. So I think you'll have to look at what schedule you're talking about to find them. But a weight of hydrocodone in Schedule III, it usually has acetaminophen in with it.
It's just going to be kind of an anecdotal guess, but I'd say around half a gram is what we're talking
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
15:12
about for one tablet of that. Okay, so if, I guess, are you familiar with this particular
Speaker 65
15:17
section of this bill? I've been looking at it, I'm not, I'm by far not
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
15:21
an expert on this yet. I was just, I really don't know, but if someone were to sell, say, 10 hydrocodone pills for,
you know, I don't know what they'd be worth for $25, I would assume that would be below the threshold delivery amount.
Speaker 65
15:38
I can't do the math based on what you just told me, but 10 pills. 10 pills would be about 5 grams is what I
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
15:51
was saying. So without finding the schedule 3. That would actually be a class B. In this
section, I will say, Representative Steele, all of this section we're talking about right now was a portion of what we negotiate with the prosecutors. These are their recommendations through negotiations that we're talking
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
16:02
about right now. I don't mean to suggest that I have any problem with it. I just wasn't clear on how the prescription pill.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
16:08
There are absolutely no bad questions. This is time for all those questions. We'd rather have
Speaker 74
16:14
them now than in committee. And Representative Williams is right. It's a Class B for the amount that the five
Speaker 24
16:20
grams that he just... So 10 pills would be a Class B. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. You've satisfied my questions. All right. Thank you. We've
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
16:32
got several others here for questions. Representative Hammer. Can you tell me in the bill, in a previous meeting, There was something regarding incentive funding tied in with, and forgive my vagueness,
and that's why I want to ask you to get straightened out if I'm going down the wrong path, but something about incentive funding going with not sending prisoners
back, where is that covered in the bill? And would you expound on that area, please? I might ask a follow-up or question if that's
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
17:03
okay. There was a hammer I'm sorry I'm trying to find that section of the bill for you
Speaker 81
17:09
I'm not sure section 117 7 what page 159
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
17:30
Generally, Representative Hammer, there is performance-based funding
or incentive-based funding in the bill. If the bill passes, we'll take a baseline study of what a particular district's burden on the department is right now, and that will be your baseline. If through your evidence-based programs you're able to reduce your burden while at the same time not increasing your felony convictions, then you will share in the savings that the
state recognizes and I can't remember the ratio, one-third of the money will be distributed back to the area that has relieved its burden, reduced its burden on the corrections department. Okay, follow-up question, please.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
18:23
And I don't mean to be insulted when I ask this question, but if you're going to tie And this is my phrase, a performance-based reward in with not sending folks back.
What checks and balances are there in place to make sure that a particular area of the state won't purposely take advantage
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
18:45
of that then? Absolutely. And maybe I should have focused on this point a little bit more. Once we take your baseline, we'll know what your baseline number is. if your felony conviction rate increases, then you're not eligible for any performance-based funding. So if you're turning a blind eye to someone and your felony conviction rate increases,
then you will not be eligible for any funding. So your felony conviction rate has to stay the same or decrease. And how
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
19:15
long will that take to – what's the length of time to establish that baseline? What time frame are we talking about from the time the bill is passed to the
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
19:29
time that's established? It's going to be
Speaker 80
19:33
the 2009 baseline. And then will it reset itself periodically in the future, like every year,
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
19:41
so as to have measurable results for? I think
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
19:45
it's three years. Every three years we reset the baseline. And I will say one of the, just because you mentioned this, one of the very good things about this bill, there's a significant amount of reporting and record-keeping which will allow us to make some significant informed decisions when we can come back and look at this in future years. Okay, so three
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
20:06
years is mentioned. I mean, there is a defined timetable mentioned in this bill? That's correct.
Okay. One more, if I may. And if I'm out of line on this, call me out of line. I'd like to ask Judge
Arnold something, if I may, because you're the only judge sitting on that end of the table. Is that correct? At the risk of putting you in an embarrassing situation, I'd like to hear as a judge, because you're the one, I feel, other than the prosecutors, that are probably going to see more of this than anybody else. I'd like to hear from a judge's perspective how you feel that this is going to help you
as a judge in your courtroom with your caseload and with stopping those who are going to be reoccurring offenders, I'd really like to hear it from somebody that sits on the bench how you feel this
is a good bill and what your honest opinions are. And I'm sorry to put you
Speaker 99
21:01
on the spot personally, but... Oh, no, you're not putting me on the spot at all. I'm very, very encouraged by the possibilities and the potential this bill has. I'm certain it's not perfect. I'm certain it will require revisions and tweaking as we go along. But any time a judge has more options or opportunities at sentencing to correct a person's behavior,
the judge has to be pleased. And that's one of the things this bill does. I think the bill will increase the probability that we will reduce recidivism, and that's the goal of any judge. Basically, I'm very encouraged by this bill. And many of my colleagues, although I'm not authorized to speak for all of
Speaker 98
21:41
them, But many of my colleagues share that optimism. Has the Judges Association
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
21:47
taken a position on this? We've heard about the prosecutors. We've heard about the sheriff.
Speaker 100
21:53
The board of the Judicial Council voted to support and endorse the concepts that
Speaker 99
21:59
generated this bill. They've not had the opportunity, as I understand it yet, to look at the bill after it had been drafted and submitted. We've not failed to endorse or endorsed it. It's just they haven't had the opportunity to meet and discuss it. But given the information that they had, when they could, the Judicial Council did endorse
it, endorsed the concept from Pew in their policy recommendations. All right. Thank you, Judge Arnold. Thank
Speaker 77
22:32
you, Mr. Chairman. Certainly. Next is Representative Rice, and then we'll come back to Representative Colin Smith. Vice Chair
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
22:38
Wilkins, just for context and just to show Representative Hammer, if you look on page
164, about lines 23 and 24, or 22 through 24, that's where you see the three-year baseline study. And if I might add, Jake, to add a little bit more context to the felony conviction rate that I talked about, if you don't mind, just to give a little more flavor to that answer.
Speaker 52
22:59
This is actually to back up and talk about the performance incentive funding just a little bit, because I think it's a little unusual, and folks may not have dealt with this kind of legislation before, particularly in the criminal justice setting. So I just wanted to provide a little context and let you know that other states are doing the same thing. And there's a couple ways to think about this. One is that take a county, your own home county. Imagine your county does a better job strengthening policing, probation and parole as locally managed, drug treatment,
mental health services, drug courts. So let's say you expand all those supervision, sanctions, and services locally. And as a result of that, crime rates go down and revocations of your probationer and parolee caseloads decrease. And ultimately, the number of admissions from your county to the Department of Corrections decreases. That's all good, right? There's reduced victimization, more accountability locally. The state's burden of corrections are all reduced. So in that scenario, but all that takes resources.
Your county needs resources to do all those activities. So what performance incentive funding does is provide those resources to get that done. And I understand the concern and the way you've raised it, and just to make sure folks are understanding that, given a scenario like that, this legislation provides funding to the localities that undertake all those efforts to reduce crime, victimization, and revocations and return to prison. Like Representative Williams mentioned, there is a safety valve in there. kicker provisions as if your new felony conviction rate increases this is for
the Department of Community Corrections performance incentive funding DCC would then become ineligible for that funding so if you turn a blind eye and new criminal convictions of director Eberhard's caseload increases he wouldn't be eligible for that money and just want to provide this a little national context here as an example in Kansas in 2007 was facing a scenario almost exactly like Arkansas is facing today their prison systems half the size of Arkansas's, but for all intents and purposes, the same problem. They were projecting very substantial prison growth over the next 10-year period at half a billion dollars in
additional taxpayer expenses. They took a look at the drivers of their prison system, found that two-thirds of prison admissions in Kansas were probation and parole violators, very similar actually to the number in Arkansas. And what they did is put in place a series of reforms, many very similar to what is in this bill. In particular, they did have, there it was called a community corrections grant program because their probation actually is locally run, and as a result of all those reforms, their prison population flatlined for three years and their crime rates continued to decline.
So not only that, but revocations of probationers and parolees declined very substantially in Kansas and the new felony conviction rate of probationers and parolees declined. So all that is essentially to say that when implemented with some fidelity, meaning true evidence-based practices, meaningful supervision, sanctions and services in the community, holding offenders accountable for their misdeeds and new crimes, you can reduce both crime, returns to prison and the expenses associated with incarceration. And Kansas isn't the only state.
Similar performance incentive funding programs have been implemented in Arizona and California, shown reductions in new crimes as well as reductions in taxpayer spending. MR. Representative Hemmer, did
Speaker 105
26:24
you do it? Okay. All right. MR. Director Eberhard pointed out a
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
26:28
mistake that I made. I said one-third of the funding will be shared with the locality. Actually one-third is shared, is given to DCC. One-half
is given to the, like, local jurisdiction that's reduced their burden. It's a burden on the Department of Corrections. MR. All right.
Speaker 111
26:45
Representative Rice. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to make an observation for the committee, since this is not normal committee stuff we're discussing,
Representative Terry Rice
Unverified
26:56
but committee, I'll talk to Chairman Williams and Vice Chairman Wilkins, announced at the end of the session today that this was an open meeting for everybody. Two observations. One is I'm either very discouraged that there's not more House members here. I appreciate Representative Colin Smith being here.
I don't think I missed anybody here that's not on committee. Okay. Excuse me. Representative Mock. Thank you. They're either depending on this committee to vet this thing and look at it hard and make recommendations. I've had many, many people ask me about this and the opportunity for them to be here. I'll throw that out for you. You know, I don't know what everybody's thinking about, but be willing to share what you have. The thing that I know that we probably all can agree on is that we've got to do something about this,
and I appreciate all the hard work everybody's done. I appreciate the positive results that have been seen in other states. That's something we can identify with. It's things that's worked. Is there things in, and I did, Representative Hammer got answered what I was concerned about is this basically resetting and going back to where you don't, when there's a crime change in an area that you don't get hung out there and you don't have the incentive, it gets reset.
But what is a measuring stick that in all the discussions have been, I'm talking about an estimated time to see measurable results. Is there anything in discussion that y'all can share with us that we can share with
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
28:47
others? Representative Rice, thank you for your observation. I just assume that's because we've done such
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
28:55
They didn't have to come here, hear it again. That's what I was hoping. With regard to measuring, what we've continually talked about, measuring really in two categories.
One, the number of inmates that are at the Department of Corrections, and two, cost. And we've looked at a kind of projected of a 10-year period of time. If we do nothing, if we do absolutely nothing, we know that our prison inmates will increase by over 6,000, about 6,500 people between now and 10 years from now. And Mr. Hobbs would have to have enough beds for another 6,500 inmates. What you don't see in the governor's budget right now is a request by the Department of Corrections for additional bed space to the tune of about $180 million, I believe, Director Hobbs, for new prisons.
If you take the projection, and mind you, the projections that we've done here, the JCA, the projection, JFA. JFA, the organization that's been
doing projections for the state for a dozen years or so now. So this is not the projections done by us. This is the projections we always use. That's where we get that 6,500 inmate number from. And that number would generate in prison bed construction costs and in operation costs a little over $1.1 billion in additional general revenue needs for the state.
And with the passage of this bill, our projection is that we will still grow. Prison population will grow. It's not going to – we don't even project it to flatline. We project it to grow. We project it to grow. Instead of growing to over 21,000, maybe close to 22,000 inmates, we expect it to grow somewhere around 18,000 inmates over the 10-year period. And instead of spending $1.1 billion additional dollars, As we anticipate during that time, we will save or not spend somewhere around $800 million
that we would not spend if we do nothing. So those are
two ways we've measured this thus
Speaker 111
31:00
far. One follow-up. Good. And also, I think we had this in a short discussion maybe at the first of the session or something. Can you tell us a little bit about the follow-up help that we're going to have as we
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
31:17
go into this? Sure, Pew has been with us for some time, and we anticipate them staying with us through
this process, and throughout this bill, they are this group similar to the working group may not
be exactly the same people will stay in place and continue to evaluate data and to make recommendations over the next several years. boards will have evaluation procedures and processes. And so this working group or something similar to this working group just doesn't go away with the passion of this bill. There will be a continued follow-up and review of what's going on.
Speaker 120
31:56
All right. Can I interject here maybe to help with this question? Think of it
Speaker 121
32:04
in these terms, what this bill is going to do. If you look at crime in this state and crime nationwide, crime is down. It's down dramatically if you look at the FBI statistics. Yet, when you look at our population and prison system and the growth there, there's got to be factors involved that are causing that prison population to increase because crime is down.
It's not all about who's getting arrested and how many are getting arrested. It has a lot to do with how we're dealing with those individuals who are incarcerated or on probation or on parole and driving up that prison population. It's not all
Speaker 25
32:54
about crime because crime is down. Okay, thank you. And Representative Rice, if it's any consolation, I believe Public Health and maybe another committee
Speaker 123
33:03
I think are meeting at the same time as well.
Speaker 10
33:07
Representative Collin Smith. MS. Thank you very much. One of the problems that I have is one that was brought up by Representative Steele. I have some of the same concerns for the citizens and as a mother in my community, and that is if you are lowering the amount of drugs that can be sold so that it doesn't fit under a certain crime, I think that's a shame that someone can stand on the street corner because they've lowered it and just sell a pop here and a pop here all day long. You can stand and watch them and you're not going to arrest them. I think that's wrong. And I hear that
from citizens in my home. There's a question with the judge here. I know that you, the The judges had initially supported looking at this Pew report. I don't know if you're aware that there were judges here last week who didn't agree with some of the things in the report, and they made it very clear. So I do hope that you'll look at this before we go a next step farther with this particular bill. So we can work the problems out now. We don't wait until it's afterwards and someone slips between the cracks.
I know there's I have to ask that in this bill there was an area where truly there was a request or a proposal to lower the distance that someone could sell drugs near a college and I think that is just a horrible thing if it's illegal it's illegal, what does it matter what the distance is from the college it should not matter and I know that there's There are other
issues that we haven't brought up yet that I have concern about, but I'm
all open for someone to tell me why that's a good thing and whether or not that's
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
34:57
been changed in the bill. Representative Collins-Smith, let's see if I can answer some of your questions. with regard to what Representative Steele was talking about, about a person selling small amounts of marijuana and not being stopped and how we've made a positive decision to cut it off.
That is just as much a function of this bill as it is a function of law enforcement because typically that's caught through undercover buys. So if a jurisdiction's law enforcement recognizes they're seeing someone repeatedly, then all they have to do to get a higher crime is to buy more from that individual. And so if you buy more, then that individual will be subject to additional penalties. And so that's a function of law
enforcement. And we believe on those very small amounts of marijuana, particularly, it can be handled through a law enforcement tool or procedure as well.
Now, throughout the bill, there are a number of places where there are enhancements for crime, for criminal actions, dealing with drugs. One is if you maintain a drug premise, if you have paraphernalia that would indicate you're dealing in meth, for example, or if you have precursor
drugs for making certain controlled substances, you get additional enhancements. And so that's one place where we're strengthening the law,
actually increasing the penalties. Also, in many of the cases, if you're convicted of, say, possessing small amounts of meth or cocaine, you may be subject to a high penalty, but on your second
or subsequent offense, you're automatically subject to a Y felony, automatically. And so throughout the bill, we think we have sufficiently enhanced penalties in various places.
Now, you also asked about the college camps, and I don't know the answer to that. I'm going to ask for some help. I believe
we removed colleges from the list of places. I'll let Brian.
Speaker 55
37:08
The drug-free zones, it was inadvertently removed from that. In terms of your question, though, about it doesn't matter what the distance is, the
Speaker 56
37:15
reason those distances are there is it actually increases the penalties as you're closer to things like a university or now to a school bus stop, other things like that. So the distance is actually there to enhance the penalty, and it has been changed, so the inadvertent removal of that is no longer there and it's back in.
But I also just wanted to piggyback on what Representative Williams has said, and there's nothing in this bill that decriminalizes any controlled substance. So the scenario that you laid out where there would be someone selling on the corner and law enforcement would be ignoring that violation just wouldn't be the case because they would still be arrested. They may be charged with lower felony classification than they are now, and in the case that Representative Steele raises, be charged with a Class A misdemeanor. But it still would be a criminal offense. Representative Collin-Smith.
Speaker 10
38:06
I also have one other question. And when you don't have a pen in your hands, you can't write them
down so you can do it all at once. So Representative Williams, also on the amount of rewarding communities, It seems to the people that you're rewarding the communities for not arresting. Can you explain that so that we're not getting, we're perceiving this as a people that, oh, it's a buyout. Don't arrest anyone so that you can give your county back some money.
Can you explain that so we can understand if it still feels like a buyout or if it's a truly feel good about that part of the bill? Sure, I can
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
38:45
do that. But let me back up and tell you on page 45, line 21 is where you'll see that we have, I'm sorry, line 22, we have reinserted public college or university in the drug-free zone. So that was an inadvertent admission. It is in the bill. I want to make sure you saw that. And if you deal in those areas, you're subject to enhanced penalties. It's one more place where we have enhancements.
With regard to the incentive funding, the only way a county will be eligible for this incentive funding if they actually have the programs in place to reduce recidivism. And the money doesn't go to the county's general fund. The money goes so they can continue to produce evidence-based programs that will reduce recidivism. So it's not just money so I can get more street lights or money so I can pave roads.
It's money so you can go right back into reducing recidivism. And the programs that are required, they have to be evidence-based programs. This can't be some fly-by night, it sounds good to me, let's pray over them and think it's going to work. It has to be a program that is proven to work, and all this is going to be under the discretion of the Department of Community Corrections. So in order for your felony conviction rates not to go up, in order for your burden on the Department of Community Corrections not to go up, you're going to have to do things to fight recidivism. If your recidivism rates don't go down, then you're not going to get the money to continue to fight crime
and continue to provide programs like mental health counseling, drug counseling, all the counseling
and programs that's necessary to try to reduce recidivism. So it's not just
Speaker 10
40:23
money for anything. Yes. So possibly a scenario with drug courts. because if there were no punishment to someone who's doing drugs, and I'm comparing it now to drug courts, what will the punishment be if someone gets caught doing drugs,
like same qualifications in a drug court situation, the same type of crime, and they repeat, so then they go to jail. Has that changed? Because I would hate to see someone go to jail and say, hey, you know, I'm not going to go to drug court, which works. It's a two-year
program or up to a two-year program. I would hate to see someone thumb their nose saying, I don't need to go to drug court. I can do 120 days in jail and be done with this and go back to doing drugs. Can you compare that kind of example to tell me how that's going to work in favor of helping people get off drugs?
Could you just kind of talk about those two issues for me? They're not the same, but I hate to see the drug court hurt if there's been a
lower punishment for someone that doesn't go through the program. I guess
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
41:36
that's what I'm trying to say. Yeah, let me see if I can sort this out because you're combining a number of concepts that we're talking about in the bill. Let me see if I can parcel some of these out. Under the bill, let's start with drug courts. Under the bill, we are increasing drug courts.
We have a – we're going to – we've never really had any type of study or evidence on where we would locate a drug court. So now we're going to have some citing guide on where drug courts actually are most needed and where they should be located. That's first of all. Additionally, we're going to – we've kept great stats of how successful drug courts are, the folks who've been successful and completed drug courts, but we've not kept any stats on the folks who flunked out of drug court. And so we're going to keep stats on that under the bill, so we'll have a better analysis of the effectiveness of drug courts.
So this bill heavily encourages and our working group, we support drug courts, and so that will not change. Now, you talked about the 120-day. Let me make sure that everyone understands this concept. Right now, Arkansas
went to voluntary sentencing and created a voluntary sentencing guideline, I think,
in 1994, I believe. 1994, and this guideline basically is a grid, and it is a combination of the crime you committed,
the severity of the crime you committed, and basically based on that, there are recommendations that the judge does not have to follow, but would suggest what your sentence should be. And there are a couple of crimes where the recommendation, according to the voluntary
guideline, is no jail time. But we know right now in the Department of Corrections we have at least 1,200 people who are sitting in the Department of Corrections
or custody of the Department of Corrections, probably in the county facility in addition to the state facility. They're sitting there. Though the voluntary guidelines suggest that there be no jail time, and that's costing us, you know, if they're in the department, $22,000 per year, though their crime is so low and their criminal history is so low that the recommendations suggest no jail time. For those folks who fall in that very first guideline category where jail time is not recommended, where the crime was a nonviolent crime,
Make sure we understand that. Whereas a nonviolent crime, we have this 120-day transfer to electronic monitoring program. So right now, those people that we're talking about, those 1,200 sitting in jail, on average, they're in jail about seven months. That's how long they stay in jail. Under the proposal in this bill, the electronic monitoring program, those folks would still be in jail, but they'd be in jail for about four months, about 120 days. they would be released from jail with an approved plan of release and an electronic bracelet.
Right now, after seven months, they're released with no tracking, with no bracelet, and they're going to keep that bracelet for at least a year, for the reign of their sentence, for the full year, so for additional eight months, as opposed to being released seven months with no way to track them. So while they may be getting out three months earlier, keep in mind this is the very lowest of low on the voluntary sentencing guideline where jail time is not recommended. So that may be what you're talking about.
Speaker 10
45:09
Did I answer your question correct? Just about. So do you really think monitoring someone with an ankle bracelet is going to keep them in 120 days from going out and doing drugs? serious i mean that's a serious question that i have i can't imagine that i guess i don't i don't
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
45:28
understand your question is that going to keep them from doing drugs i if someone wants to do drugs we're not going to keep them just as they got out on the day one after their seven months uh we wouldn't stop them from doing drugs they would still probably do drugs what is the purpose
Speaker 10
45:42
of the ankle monitoring if their reason for being in jail was drugs what you can't see them do drugs You can't tell if they're breaking the law, I guess is my
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
45:55
question. Well, first of all, you may be in that guide for more than just a drug crime.
So there could be folks other than that in that category. Do you test their
Speaker 10
46:10
urine? Do you make them accountable to, I guess, part of?
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
46:14
They're going to be released with an approved plan, a parole plan,
and so that could be a part of their parole plan for drug testing for any number of things. It could be, but Director Eberhard is dying to help me with this. I'm going to happily
Speaker 137
46:30
let him do it. Actually, that's true. I think I am dying to help.
Speaker 139
46:38
The monitor, I think, was in place in order to satisfy the public that this person is not just being released from prison
without any physical constraints on him or her. But as an agency, DCC is in no way going to rely just on the fact that this offender has a monitor in order to deal with that person because, for one, they're going to undergo an evidence-based practice of a risk and needs assessment. And so it is going to be determined what their risk is for reoffending and what's driving that risk.
And then the whole purpose, one of the whole purposes behind this bill is to adequately fund DCC to the extent that the needs can be met that are going to reduce that risk of reoffending. So while that person is on a monitor, that is not the only thing that we're going to be dealing with. So if, in fact, the crime they committed was drug-related and the risk and needs assessment tool indicates that they need some sort of treatment,
then they're going to be receiving treatment along with that monitor. So I agree with you that the monitor may have no effect, and it probably would have zero effect on whether they're going to use again. And that's exactly why this bill contemplates DCC being funded at a higher level so that we can adequately provide evidence-based
Speaker 142
48:17
practices which include drug and alcohol treatment.
Speaker 10
48:21
Is that program in place already before we vote on this bill? I mean, we have to go home and face the folks who elect us. So when someone says, well, they're not going to get any crime, I'm asking the question. It's been asked of me. Is a plan in place that when we vote on this, we're knowing what kind of follow-up treatment plan is the plan in
Speaker 25
48:47
place? All right. And what we're going to do, Director and Representative Collin-Smith, really thank
you for being here and for your questions. Because we have several other people, I'm going to go ahead and ask Director Everhart to respond to that one, and then we'll give some other folks a bite at the apple, and then we'll come back and let you continue to ask your line of questions as well. So
Speaker 139
49:11
thank you. All right. Thank you. Is the plan in place? We know how to respond to the needs that will address and reduce the risk.
To say that is the plan in place not necessarily because of the fact that we haven't had the resources necessary to deal with all the needs that are going to reduce that risk. We do have counselors out in the field. They're the same counselors that work with the drug courts. in some cases, that is adequate. What they provide is adequate. But in many cases, that is not sufficient in order to meet a particular offender's need in order to reduce their risk
of recidivating. They may need residential treatment. Now, there are treatment providers out there, but it's not free. And in some cases, we know that the offender may need residential treatment, but we're unable to get that person in a program because they They can't pay for it, and we don't have the resources to pay for it. So I can't really say that every plan is in place to the extent that we have the ability right now to do it and would have the ability if this bill were passed. We'll have the ability if the necessary resources are provided because we know how to deal with
Speaker 147
50:32
those offenders. It's just sometimes we've lacked the ability to deal with
Speaker 24
50:40
the offenders in an adequate and substantive way. All right, and Director, while you
Speaker 25
50:45
have your mic on, I had a teacher come to me the other day and said, say, I'm really supportive of this plan, but I've got a question. And then she proceeded to talk about how with what she called education reform, that the
enormity of the paperwork and recordkeeping, what would you say to somebody who might have a question about whether or not caseworkers or any place in the system is going to be overwhelmed or feel overwhelmed in terms of the recordkeeping that we're talking about? MR. I guess with regard to the
Speaker 140
51:25
recordkeeping that is required of the Department of Community Correction? MR. As well
Speaker 25
51:30
as, and I don't know if Jake or somebody wants to respond as well in
terms of what they're going to be doing as they stay with us through this process, but particularly
Speaker 139
51:47
the department. MR. Well, we already are required to keep certain statistics, maintain certain paperwork electronically. That will arguably increase under this bill, because for one thing, in order for something to be evidence-based, there has to be proof that it does, in fact, reduce recidivism,
which requires the acquisition of statistics and then processing those statistics. So you know, I know sometimes our officers do feel overwhelmed by the requirement for keeping certain stats and maintaining certain information. I think we have to do our best to balance that with their need to adequately supervise offenders.
And in many cases, that maintenance of that paperwork is having nothing to do with dealing with the offender. And so, you know, to the extent that some officers are overwhelmed by it, we just need to do what we can do as an agency to make sure that their needs are being met, that the officer's needs are being met, because the stats still have
Speaker 151
53:00
to be kept. The offender still has to be supervised.
Speaker 25
53:04
Okay. Well, I certainly understand and I appreciate it. Will you be providing Valium to those who need it?
Speaker 152
53:12
You may have to provide it to me. I'm not sure what schedule that is, but I don't know
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
53:19
if I want to be messing with that. Mr. Vice Chair, I would make the note that
under the proposed bill, Director Eberhard talked about needing additional resources. They will have additional resources to hire additional probation officers under this program, as well as a limited number of programs. So if this passes and the funding passes, we anticipate that they will have additional staffing as well to help with that caseload reduction. And may I, I apologize, may I back up because I know that Representative Colin Smith is a fan of drug courts and make one additional point for the 120-day period.
The drug court judges talked to us about this bill, and we removed if you fail drug court, you cannot take advantage of the 120-day release program. And that was a provision that we added at the request of the judges who have drug courts. So just to help with that, I know you're a
Speaker 24
54:11
fan of that. MR. All right. Thank you. Representative Eubank. MR.
Speaker 157
54:17
Thank you. Help me understand this a little bit better. Now, the purpose of this bill here, based on the information you've given us, is you've
made projections on where we're going to be in ten years as far as prison populations and costs, et cetera. And the purpose of this is to slow that growth of those prison populations. That's correct. And we've talked about the incentive funding for communities. I assume that's included in this funding that you're talking about and where that initially is going to come from to help areas that maybe have limited resources right now and aren't doing a very good job and they need to expand them, and then the areas that are doing a
fairly good job hopefully fund them so they're even more successful. So what is the price tag to doing this? I know we're trying to save money by, you know, slowing the growth of the prison population,
Representative Terry Rice
Unverified
55:16
but how does that compare to how much it's going to cost us to implement these things to
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
55:23
even realize those savings? MR. Sure. Mr. Eubanks, let me say that
our overall goal, primary goal in starting this program
was maintaining and improving public safety. It wasn't cost. It was, first of all, public safety came first. It was to reduce recidivism, hold offenders accountable, and to contain our corrections costs. The cost that we project right now is about $9.4 million. About a half a million dollars of that is one-time money, so we won't see that again. So we're talking about right about $9 million going forward, and that's money that we would spend.
And, again, if we're successful, as we think we can be, and other states have been, we would reduce or otherwise not have to spend some $800-plus. We've been saying about $857 million. I don't want to say that number. I'll say up to about $857 million because with some of the drug changes, we're still calculating what we think our savings will be. It's not going to go down very much, but I don't want to use the number 857 again, but it's $800 million range. so that was
Speaker 157
56:34
about nine million a year yes sir okay so we're over a 10 year period we're going
to spend 90 to save 800 plus okay all
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
56:42
right thank you all right next week let me let me one
good point thank you jake of that 9.4 million dollars in this bill we're raising probation and parole fees from 25 to 35 dollars our surrounding states um the the lowest of the surrounding states around us charge $35. We've not raised this amount in some years. We have how many years? In 10 years, we have of those inmates who can pay, not
including the indigents, we have a very high rate of pay from our probation officer. I believe probation and parolees, I believe it's in the I think the percentage was 80-plus percentage. Is that right? We waive
Speaker 139
57:25
approximately 7% based on indigency, which means 93 percent of the offenders under our supervision are required to pay a supervision fee and our collection rate historically has been around eighty seven percent so we've
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
57:37
got a very good rate of collection so we anticipate with the increase of ten dollars will raise three million dollars annually so we're
only talking about an additional six million dollars in general
Speaker 25
57:52
revenue going forward all right next we have this order representative Gilliam Shepard steel and hammer represent to go
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
58:06
lot of it was just taken up by representative Eubanks and his questioning and I guess Now I'll go weed through some of these, but as far as phasing in the budget increases and everything,
are we beginning that preparation with this budget cycle now as far as getting DCC, the additional funding and everything? Will that begin in fiscal 2012 budget? That's correct. Okay. All right. Thank you. Representative Shepard. Thank you,
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
58:47
Mr. Chairman. Representative Williams, if you could, would you discuss the changes that are being made with regard to parole eligibility from the Department of Corrections?
I understand that at some point, and I'm not sure if it's still in the bill or not, but at some point there's eligibility upon completion of 120 days in the department. Is that still the case, and what offenses would we be talking about with regard to that type of eligibility? We're talking
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
59:17
about the 120-day program. Let's see if I can find that section. If somebody can help me find that section, page 134. What I want to make it clear is we have – there was a mistake in a previous draft of the bill.
Whenever we've talked about this 120-day release program, we've always intended this to be nonviolent offenders. And we have made a mistake. We made a mistake in the previous draft. It's been corrected, pointed out to us and corrected. And now we have removed every violent offense. And so to the extent that it's a violent offense, it will not be captured, will not be eligible for the 120-day release program.
If you look on – well, it lays them out here, starting at line 23 on
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
1:00:23
Yes, continue, please. And I guess another question that I think might be helpful for the committee. It's my understanding at some point in the past that individuals were eligible for parole immediately upon entering the Department of Corrections and that that was – I mean, this may have been several years ago, but at some point we were allowing the parole board to have
Speaker 170
1:00:47
that type of discretion already, although I understand that's been tightened up.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:00:52
Yeah, I'm not aware of that. I know that's not happening right now, but I'm not aware when that happened. And on this point,
though, let me make sure you understand if a jury, if the defendant opts for a jury trial, a jury makes a decision to sentence someone. Brian, help me if I'm correct here. If the jury makes a decision to sentence someone for a period of time, they're going to serve that time. Even if they're eligible for this 120-day release, if it's by a jury, they're going to serve that time.
They're not going to be eligible for getting out sooner than a jury has suggested or take advantage of this 120-day
period. Even a judge, a bench trial or a jury trial, this is – so a
bench trial or a jury trial, it's kind of – I don't want to – I'm afraid of calling it truth in sentencing, but
Speaker 171
1:01:47
it's kind of what it is. It would apply to negotiated pleas. That's
Speaker 77
1:01:52
correct. Thank you. All right. Representative Steele.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:01:55
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You discussed the funding formula a while ago, and I've discussed it with people until I'm
blue in the face, and I still don't
really understand it, although I understand it's not as simple as rewarding municipalities for not sending people to prison. My understanding was that this was going to be a pilot program. Is that correct? And would require, I hope, I suggested and I hoped it made it into the bill, that it would require some kind of legislative action to become permanent. Is that correct? Did that make it into the bill?
Speaker 56
1:02:25
It's a pilot in the sense that it initially will only be in five counties, but it isn't a pilot like the HOPE program that's in here, the Swift and Certain and Accountability Program, that it would be an ongoing program for
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:02:38
the state. Okay. So if it's determined to work by, I guess, who would make that decision? Department of Corrections? Who would make the decision on whether or not it worked and to implement it statewide in every county indefinitely? This is
Speaker 56
1:02:54
one of the beauties of performance incentive funding is that there's only funding allocated if it works.
And so the only time that funding will be given to localities is if they both reduce their net burden on the Department of Corrections and reduce
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:03:10
crime. I understood this whole program, the whole incentive-based funding program, to be a pilot program. And am I incorrect in that? Well, maybe
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:03:21
in the first year, it's going to be in five locations. Four of those are going to be those that have the most burden on our correction system,
and then one system from a rural area. So that's the pilot nature. We're not going to start statewide. We're going to start with five localities. And the Board of Corrections will set policies and procedures for these programs, And I believe they'll be responsible for evaluating these programs and making changes as we go forward. So the Board of Corrections will have ultimate kind of administrative supervisor authority over
how these programs are set up. Okay. I had spoken
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:04:01
with someone about the possibility of handling this pilot program the same as we handled the district court pilot program.
And that is we have a few pilot full-time district court judges throughout the state. We have not taken any legislative action to apply that statewide because we weren't sure whether or not it would work. I understood that to be the same case here with the funding formula. And I thought we had agreement to require some kind of legislative action after five years or so to make sure it worked. Did that not make it into the
bill? And if so, can somebody tell me
Speaker 56
1:04:36
why not? MR. The working group intention in only starting in five pilots was not so that
it would eventually be reevaluated or eventually sunset. It was because there was some concern that there are smaller jurisdictions that just wouldn't have the capacity to do anything with the funding. And so the idea here is, as this kicks off and starts to work in these initial jurisdictions that multi-county partnerships would form and then later apply for additional funding so that's the nature of the pilot not that it was
a temporary program and that was the design of the working group does that answer
Speaker 163
1:05:18
your question representative steel not entirely mr. chairman but I've
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:05:20
I've got a few others. I'll move on, if that's all right. Sure. We talked also
a lot about expansion of drug courts, and that's something I'm certainly in favor of. Is there anything in this bill that would make
more crimes eligible for drug courts than are currently eligible for drug courts? And I've got the same questions about boot camps, but if you could start about boot camp, but if we could start with drug courts.
Is there any – I know now certain offenses don't qualify for drug court. Will
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:05:51
this change any of that? It does, Representative
Steele. Right now, if you've been convicted of a violent crime, you're not eligible for drug court. Under this bill, we'll take a broader definition, more akin to what the federal government does, and we will allow not the conviction that you're before the judge for right then, but you may have a previous violent conviction. We'll adopt the federal court's definition, and so you may be eligible for drug court
if you have had a violent conviction in your past, not the one present before you, but so we will expand the use of drug court and the eligibility for drug
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:06:26
court. And at whose discretion would that be, whether or not you were qualified for drug court? Would that be up to the prosecutor, up
Speaker 99
1:06:36
to the judge, or would it be part of a – Judge. That's – in most cases, that's a decision made by the drug court team. Ultimately, it's staffed and decided. just because you're eligible does not mean you're admitted.
The prosecutor has input, the public defender has input. Ultimately, the judge in charge of that drug court has the final say. Okay, so
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:06:59
a defendant could petition to be, I guess, directed to drug court, and that could, even if there's some disagreement. A defendant could be eligible and
Speaker 99
1:07:07
not be permitted to participate. Okay. Same question with
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:07:10
boot camp. But I know, first of all, would the director or someone mind explaining briefly for the committee who is eligible for boot camp under current law?
My understanding is any nonviolent felony sentenced to 10 years or less is bypassed to boot camp. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. And would this do anything to make boot camps more available for some people or less, I guess, in some circumstances?
Speaker 183
1:07:44
Probably less, because if they fail or
Speaker 184
1:07:48
flunk out of drug courts, they will no longer be
eligible for boot camp. So probably less. Okay.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:07:57
Currently they are eligible? Yes. Okay. One more question if I might, Mr. Chairman. I hate to keep beating this same horse, but you mentioned
that possession of certain amounts of methamphetamine
and crack cocaine would be misdemeanors, later punishable by an enhancement of a felony. Or I'm sorry, maybe they'd already be felonies, but later enhanced if there were multiple subsequent convictions. And I'm just curious to know why that same logic did not
apply to deliveries of marijuana, as I mentioned earlier. Seems like you'd have the same basis for that. And am I correct in saying that if there were some sort of enhancement, as long as the maximum punishment did not exceed 10 years, they would still be eligible for boot camp. Am I correct in saying that? So if you had some delivery of marijuana even currently, maximum being 10 years and it being nonviolent, they still wouldn't be taking up room in ADC. Is that correct? I guess that was a three-part question. I apologize. Let's
Speaker 186
1:09:02
I'm not sure I know the answer to any three of those parts, to be quite honest. Can you give him two
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:09:11
out of three? Currently, am I correct in assuming that any charge, nonviolent, as we mentioned, that's punishable by no more than 10 years would be bypassed the boot camp? Yes. Okay. So if we were to provide for an enhancement of some kind for multiple deliveries of marijuana, they would still only be able to do it for boot camp. We still wouldn't be taking up more room in ADC. Is that fair to say?
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:09:32
I'm not sure if you could say they're not taking up room. I mean, boot camp has to be staffed and paid for, so there's still a financial burden or a cost associated with that. I guess it's true that they may not be in one of the facilities run by the Department of Corrections. That may be true, but there's still obviously costs and resources associated with
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:09:58
that. Okay. One more question. I apologize, Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind.
Currently, are drug courts only available in circuit court and felony
court? Yes, that's correct. If our goal is to rehabilitate drug users, it seems like some of these deliveries of marijuana and some of the things on prescription drugs, it would make drug court less available to these people because they would be in district court. Is that correct? If they're a misdemeanor, they're going
Speaker 98
1:10:28
to be in district court. Is that what you're referring
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:10:31
to? Right. So if delivery of marijuana under half an ounce from now on is only a misdemeanor,
assuming these people are delivering and possessing this marijuana because they
have the drug problem, we will have no option of sending them to drug court because they will always only be
Speaker 99
1:10:48
in district court. Is that correct? At this time, the only people eligible for drug courts are in circuit courts
Speaker 73
1:10:54
for felonies. That's correct. And I'll stop there. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right.
Speaker 163
1:10:59
Next, we have Representative Hammer and then Representative Sanders. May I have liberty
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:11:06
for about three or four questions, all unrelated to everything?
Certainly. Thank you. On page, I think
Speaker 193
1:11:16
it was page 160. Page 160 at the top, line
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:11:23
two and three, first thing I'd like to ask you is if you'd help me get my mind around something. If there's some initiative money, we'll call it, associated with this program, and say somebody offends in Saline County, and that county is doing everything they can,
but that person moves to another county, say whatever, doesn't matter, and they go down there and they offend, and they are brought in that court system down there, Can you help me understand how one county is not going to be punished because of what happened in the other county and vice versa as far as determining the end, as
far as the end determination, whether or not they're going to be given
any of that incentive money?
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:12:17
So there's a question if someone lives in one county but offends another
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:12:23
county, which county would be credited for that offense? Exactly. Somebody lives in Saline County, an example comes for Judge Arnold, or they're paroled, and they're living in Saline County, and that's what naturally would be their home. But then they go to another part of the state, and they make an offense, and now doesn't it become that court's jurisdiction to deal with that person? and I know that's probably maybe not a major number,
but how does the money follow that person or not follow that person if this is an incentive-based program? Judge, help me.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:12:57
So he's got a problem with revocation in your court. Judge, your mic may not be on.
Speaker 102
1:13:05
If it's a probation revocation, it would come
Speaker 190
1:13:09
back to Saline County. That person would be sent back
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:13:12
to the county that that happened, even if they offended somewhere else.
Speaker 99
1:13:16
That's correct. If it's for a probation revocation.
It goes back to the county where they were placed on probation. Now, if it's parole, that's up to the Department of Corrections, and it doesn't
Speaker 197
1:13:29
matter where it occurs. Okay, so the
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:13:31
money is – somebody's not going to – a county isn't going to be penalized or going to be disadvantaged because somebody may live here and go offend somewhere else because that person's going to be returned. No more so than any county is now. Okay. I was just thinking if it's an incentive-based program that the money might disproportionately not follow the person. Okay. Same question. Part of this whole initiative is to save money. Is that a fair statement?
Or to contain costs, correctly. Okay. Or to contain costs. And some of this, I think, was brought about by Representative, whatever your name is, sorry, and Representative Collins over there. Thank you, Mr. Eubanks. If this is to level, if this is to save money and to level cost or containment and everything, why is there not enough savings in what's projected in order to be able to fund it without having us to go back and ask? And the other thing is, if the Department of Correction is, and not to put you on an awkward position,
but if the Department of Correction is that much behind this, are they going to continue to make the $187 million request for construction of two new prisons if this bill is supposed to
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:14:50
do what it's supposed to do? Well, let's
start with the latter question. I'm happy to let Director Hobbs answer that. But that
request is not being funded today, and it's not being recommended either. Oh, it's pulled off the table? Yes, it's not on the – it's what they need, but it's what they're not going
Speaker 202
1:15:11
The need is going to go away. Okay. Did Mr. Hobbs want to speak to
Speaker 203
1:15:21
that? I'm sorry. Representative Whitby is correct. My job is to tell what we need to house convicted felons. As you realize, we are 1,600 backed up in the county jail, so there's a need for those beds to house convicted felons. So it's not coming.
Speaker 184
1:15:41
That's the way we deal with it. But that's our need. Okay. Okay.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:15:50
earlier, when these come out at the projected date that they're expected to come out, there should be, whether there is or not, but there should be a program or programs in place in order to help get them off to the best start they can so they don't get back in because maybe they're undereducated or underemployed or, you know, underskilled or whatever the case may be.
Is there – and we are talking about a 120-day window, correct, under this program? We're looking at the population that's on the 120-day. Am I – is that correct? I
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:16:27
want to make sure you're not combining the performance incentive funding with the 120-day release because there's
two separate policy considerations. So are you talking about the performance incentive funding? Well, where I'm going
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:16:39
with my question is what can we do before – Is
there enough being done before they get released or paroled out so that we can lessen the cost once they get out to the programs that are going to have to absorb this wave of parolees that are going to be released at some point?
And is there anything being done to help address that cost or get them off to a better start before they're even let
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:17:05
out of the jail cell? MR. Okay. And this I'm
going to let Director Hobbs explain the requirements when they're in jail in the Department of Corrections, which not only relates to the 120 days, but just anyone in the Department of Corrections, they have an approved work plan, and I'll let
Speaker 183
1:17:23
him describe and explain that. MR. Representative Hammer, any inmate coming into the Department of Corrections comes
Speaker 203
1:17:31
into our intake, our diagnostic center. At that point, the risk assessment, the treatment needs, we deal with at that point. That person needs a high school education, he'd have to get one before he's parole. VOTEC, if there's a need there, we deal with that. Treatment programs, anger management, substance abuse, all those programs are in place in
the Department of Correction to deal with on the front end. We started that day one. Okay. I'd like
Speaker 205
1:18:11
to make a statement. I've got one last thing.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:18:14
It's already my last question. Thank you. I would just like to, as a representative, because I'm sure all of us and you all are greatly appreciated for the work you've done, and I know you put in no telling how many hours and then you come to sit in front of us to answer some of the same questions you probably have in your deliberation, so it is greatly appreciated.
I would just like to say as a representative, because of the meetings I've had with individuals, that I hope that something is introduced when they come out that would have some sort of faith-based organization to it, because I think that that makes a big impact in the overall picture. So I hope that in the development that something faith-based would be incorporated into that. And then
Speaker 193
1:18:57
my last question or last request, basically, some of the meetings that we have sat in, Mr. Chairman, the Pew Foundation has been called into credibility as far as being
able to substantiate the statistics upon which they have based this report, and we're leaning very heavily on the Pew Foundation and their research base, et cetera, and I haven't heard anything from any representatives with the Pew Foundation. i would like to know what it'd be in order if they could come to the microphone and give us an explanation and a defense of the statistics upon which they have led all of us to believe that this is the best package if that would be an order please yes we've we've got that
Speaker 25
1:19:39
jake and brian uh... i'm not sure well which of them would wanna uh... respond to that jay called
Speaker 207
1:19:45
to pew brown old room also with the peace on states uh... I think the first thing is... Jake, they
Speaker 38
1:19:52
said I can't quite hear you. Can you hear me
Speaker 52
1:19:55
now? Yes. Okay. The first thing is that, you know, the Pews and the United States was invited into the state by Governor Beebe, Chief Justice Hanna, and legislative leadership about 18 months ago. So we arrived at the request of the state. The data analyzed as part of this project with the working group is all Arkansas data.
This wasn't data from outside the state. The state has an electronic management system called YOMIS. the JFA Institute which has been doing projections and correctional population work with the state for over a dozen years was the data analyst used in this project so it's the same data analysis that's been going on with the Sentencing Commission DCC ADC for over a decade there's no Pew didn't do the data analysis the JFA Institute which the state's been working with for a long time did the data analysis almost all that comes from ADC admission data pulled
from the marquee data system as well some DCC data out of the only original data collection done for the project was a the state doesn't currently have data electronic system for tracking dispositions from county courts so there's not one source where you can find out of people convicted for X or Y offense where they sent to probation versus ADC how long were they sentenced for so the Sentencing Commission undertook a 90-day sample where they visited all county courts pulled the files coded that data this is labor intensive work, and we appreciate that they're able to do it because it revealed some new
facts about dispositions in the state. It also, in fact, corroborated some data we were seeing from other parts of the ADC system in particular. So we then felt that if we have these two data systems with similar indicators in them, that that, in fact, indicated that we were at the right solution. But just to sort of reiterate, all the data analysis was done at the request of the working group on sentencing corrections, which was all Arkansas officials. It was using Arkansas's data systems, and it was conducted by the JFA Institute, who's worked here for over a dozen years. Thank you, and I would like to apologize.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:21:50
It wasn't that I didn't recognize y'all with the Pew Foundation. It's just we
hadn't spoke to the credibility of the numbers, and no offense
Speaker 24
1:21:58
intended by not recognizing. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Hammer, does that answer your concern about the data? All right, great.
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
1:22:07
Representative Sanders. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that question. And Representative Williams and other members who are here, Mr. Eberhardt and Mr. Hobbs, it speaks to the bill. And I know this has been a part of the Pew findings in dealing with parole.
I'll be honest. I'm very grateful for the changes that have been made to the bill. I think you guys have gone above and beyond. And to address some of the criticisms that were levied against the bill and what you have said were mistakes, that's all water in the bridge. I think you've made some good corrections. My concern is that we are going to increasingly be leaning on the parole system and putting more people into the parole system. And I read on the bill, and I guess it's in Section 110. Obviously, there's all the talk about SWIFT and certain sanctions.
And, you know, I've read over the summer the number of parole absconders that we have in the state of Arkansas and how that compares to other states around us. And I know we have varying degrees of people who are out on the streets, and I understand there's an effort to proliferate a uniform risk assessment tool across judicial districts that we all can, I guess, have some sort of agreement on. But my question is, it says that you're going to sort of work out this new swift and certain sanction system for people who violate parole.
And my question today, as I understand it, in place with DCC and with reference to we draw the distinction between technical violations and, I guess, reoffending via committing a felony or committing a sexual offense, a crime. And I guess my concern is that I look at the way the department is handling things today in terms of people who violate, people who fail the drug test,
people who fail to pay their supervisory fees not just once but twice, fail to show up for community service. And I don't see that there are swift and certain sanctions. In fact, as I understand it, and Mr. Eberhardt, you may correct me, No technical violation of a parolee can land one back into the Arkansas Department of Correction.
Speaker 140
1:24:36
Is that correct? That is not correct. There are many offenders yearly that land back in the Department of Correction based on a technical violation.
Speaker 139
1:24:46
And we also have a technical violator center, which is where we're hopeful they go. The Department of Community Correction doesn't revoke any parolee. We don't have the authority or power to revoke a parolee. Once they're revoked, they either are sent back to prison or they are sent to the technical violator program in Malvern. And as I understand it,
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
1:25:09
correct me if I'm wrong, once an offender goes to the technical violator program, once it goes to the center and he or she comes out, the reset button has been hit.
They start all over again. Is that correct? I'm not sure. I understand the question. For instance, if they're offending, if they are constantly failing drug tests and they get to that place and the decision is made to put them in the technical violator center and they come back out, I mean, they are on parole, they start all over again. It's not that, you know, they can fail a drug test and they can fail a drug test. So what I'm concerned about, what I understand is sort of this sort of revolving door in parole, I've seen some documents that sort of lay out, I guess it's a new sanctioning
grid that the Department is using for parole and probation violation. And I guess what I'm concerned with is squaring what I see is, and maybe we can talk afterwards and see if this, in fact, is the case, what is communicated in the bill, which talks about SWIFT in certain sanctions, and then what I've seen in terms of department information. I've got this in front of me here. It's a DCC parole probation violation sanctioning grid, and there are some notes at the bottom
of it, and I'll be happy to share this with you. It says, note one, once returned from the TVC, client starts over again. Note two has the word no, underlined, technical violations go to ADC. and note three reads deviation from this grid requires assistant director's approval I mean I guess I'm concerned that there is going to be this increased reliance on parole which is a system that I think we have I've looked over the past
year and a half, two years about the number of people who are arrested for some very bad crimes, violent crimes and these people have been on parole they've been parole violators There was an instance a few weeks ago where a gentleman was arrested for double murder at UAMS and attempted murder. He was on parole. He was on parole violation. He was in the drug court. This was a guy who wasn't nonviolent. I just want to make sure that the spirit, I think, of the bill is very clear. I commend this idea of swift and certain sanction.
I guess my question, Mr. Eberhardt, is if that's what's set out in the bill, So there may be a gap that we're missing here in terms of, you know, what the sanctioning grid says and what is used. And I'd like to talk to you about this to see if this is, in fact, this is a draft that was updated January 5th of this year. And I don't know that that squares with what this bill is
Speaker 139
1:28:02
sure I completely understand the question you're asking.
One, I would say that that grid is a work in progress. That grid has
Speaker 140
1:28:09
not been finalized. In fact, the bill requires us to come up with a grid. So we're anticipating what this bill requires with regard to that grid. For one, the grid isn't final because if the bill is passed, we'll be allowed under this bill to actually place somebody in jail for seven days without going back to the court or the parole board, which at this point we don't have that authority.
Speaker 139
1:28:39
This bill is saying and giving us the increased authority to act in a swift and certain manner because the evidence indicates that it's not the severity of a sanction that is most
Speaker 140
1:28:53
important. And what's most important is that the sanction happens swiftly and certainly.
Speaker 139
1:29:00
Much of what you hear with regard to not being swift and certain has been the result of, in many cases,
the lack of the resources to actually place a person somewhere where their need would be met. Because under that sanctioning grid, for instance, a sanction might be you've got to go get treatment. Treatment's not free. And so in some cases, while that might have been an appropriate sanction, and if we had had the resources, it would have been dealt with swiftly. And certainly, we were unable to deal with it
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
1:29:44
Yeah, and I will say, looking at the grid, I will say this, that there
are some positive aspects to it, too, that I see. Certainly, one, if there are any pending new felony charges, i.e., a violent or sexual offense. I've talked to prosecutors who say it's hard even to get someone who is on parole to guarantee that they are locked up while they're awaiting hearing on those offenses. I think it speaks to this very clearly in terms of pending new felony charges, one, jail if violent or sexual offenses.
So if that, in case, is the direction we're moving, I think that's certainly progress because I've talked to some prosecutors who've said it's not a guarantee that if you have a parolee who's out there and who commits a violent offense that that parolee
Speaker 150
1:30:34
is going to be held in lockup. Well, in many
Speaker 140
1:30:37
cases, they may make bail. And at that point, we don't run the jails, so we can't make somebody stay there necessarily. would you
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
1:30:46
be able to I mean, and you said your sanctioning grid
is necessitated or coming up with a new sanctioning grid is necessitated by this bill is that going to sort of be an open process where we can sort of see what y'all are doing? Because again, there are a lot of things on here and again, it may be swift and certain sanctions. There are a lot of written warnings on here There are a lot of orders for community service. There are some things, you know, failure to pay supervision fees, failure to report first offense, association with a felon.
There are a lot of written warnings on here.
And I guess in my mind, that doesn't – that's light, I guess, and that may be my
Speaker 139
1:31:39
own bias coming through. MR. I don't know if we have the same understanding of what a sanction is because a sanction is not necessarily they're going to get revoked. MR. Right. MR.
Speaker 140
1:31:48
We're trying to stay away from the revocation process if we can. So those are graduated, and obviously some of them are not going to be as severe as ones
further down the grid given the action of the offender or how many times the offender has engaged in certain actions. Again, that's not a final product. I mean,
Speaker 139
1:32:09
it won't even be final until July 1, if this bill is passed, until the law goes into effect. Can I
Speaker 126
1:32:15
ask one more question? Mr. Sanders, can I follow
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:32:18
up? Absolutely. Just a little bit. Right now, probation and parole officers don't have the tools necessary. So what you're reading from is really not even in effect now.
It's anticipating this. But basically what happens now, if you violate your parole or probation, your parole or probation officer has one or two choices. Let's say you flunk a urine test. They can ignore it or they can send you to jail. Those are their options right now, basically. And we know if you're going to be sent to jail, that's
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:32:52
anyone go to jail for flunking a urine test? Well, they could, and probably yes. what probably happens more often than not is it's ignored because of the
backlog and trying to get someone into into jail but back into the Department of Corrections because of that but there I think there are a number of people who have who are in and I'll let someone else because that who are who have who are on probation and not using drug is a condition of their probation if they violate that then they they've committed a violation what what if this bill passes And Director Eberhard's office will have more opportunity for swift insurgent sanctions, intermediate sanctions. What studies show is that if you sanction someone immediately and if it's certain and
they know it's going to happen and it actually happens, then it's more likely to change behavior. I hate to make an analogy with training a pet. But when you train a pet, if they do something wrong, you punish them immediately, eventually they stop doing that. And it's somewhat akin to that. No way am I trying to equate probationers with animals, but it's somewhat akin to that, and that's what we're trying to do here with the swift and certain intermediate sanctions so the probation officer, without having to go back before a judge and not having that long delay, can immediately, you come in,
you have a dirty urine right then, that probation officer has the ability to do something, maybe send you to jail for a weekend, maybe make you report on a more consistent basis. and what studies have
shown is that has a tremendous success in changing behavior. Mr. Eberhardt, what
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
1:34:25
happens when a parolee fails a urine test for the first time? Well, various
Speaker 148
1:34:31
things could happen if a parolee fails a drug test for the first time. I mean, is there any...
Speaker 140
1:34:42
I can't really say that there is one thing that happens to an offender the first time they fail a drug
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
1:34:49
test. Do you currently have a sanctioning grid that DCC utilizes in that instance so that when your probation officer encounters or your parole officer encounters a parolee who has failed a drug test one time, two times, three times, currently at DCC, do you have things that you – Okay, this person right now on this, this working document, it says an SAPL assessment.
Speaker 139
1:35:16
I'm not even sure what that acronym is. Well, that's a substance abuse program leader. It's one of our counselors. And oftentimes that's what would happen even now. We don't have a grid now. We're developing a grid. If this bill became law, we would be
Speaker 140
1:35:35
required to develop a grid. A grid is a smart thing to do whether this bill passed or not. So there are numerous things that could be done with an offender based on one positive drug test.
I would say that one of the factors that has led to the inability to maybe engage in a swift
Speaker 139
1:35:57
and certain sanction is the fact that in many cases, like for instance, Representative Williams is correct, maybe one of the sanctions might be you have to report more often. The fact is that we're down so many officers that that kind of sanction, while it would be more than appropriate, may not be possible presently, given an officer's caseload, because there are only so many hours in the day.
And so that grid contemplates, one, the fact that we would have more officers to reduce caseload so that we could more effectively and substantively deal
Speaker 140
1:36:34
with the offenders that we are obligated to supervise. Mr. Williams, are we going to increase the number of parole
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
1:36:42
officers and the funding for parole officers? I see that if we are relying more heavily on this, I see that as an absolute must. I mean, I know there's a – everyone would like to build more prisons, but, you know, as I understand, Mr. Eberhardt, the cost –
currently the cost for an inmate to be dealt with on parole
Speaker 225
1:37:01
is about $3 a day. Is that correct? I saw that on a recent television report. Oh, actually,
Speaker 151
1:37:07
it's about $1.53 a day. Of course, obviously,
Speaker 146
1:37:09
that's going to go up if our officers are increased, but not substantially. Representative, are
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:37:16
we going to increase the number of parole officers? The answer is yes. This bill contemplates increasing
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
1:37:21
parole and probation officers. Okay. Do we have a number? Do we have a – because I want to know. I care very much about this, and I think certainly Director Eberhard has done a good job,
and he's going down the right path, and I think he's providing good leadership over there. And I visited your facility here over by UAMS and War Memorial in one of the AA meetings, and I will tell you that I applaud you for the work you're doing over there. I'm just concerned that this doesn't get swept under the rug, that if we are going to rely more heavily on parole and probation, that we are putting the necessary bodies and the necessary amount of money that we need in order to carry out the spirit of this bill.
Speaker 140
1:38:07
The current recommendation with our budget is the restoration of 49 positions that would be funded. Now, there's a recommendation that the 80 positions we've been down would be restored, but only 49 of those with funding, currently with a
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
1:38:28
recommendation. And let me ask this, and I'll finish, Mr. Chair, and you've been very gracious, as have you, Mr. Everhart, Mr. Williams. How much, with the usage and the proliferation of the risk assessment tool, how much better?
How much will parole be improved? I mean, because that's, I mean, I understand if we're using a risk assessment tool, That's information that's going to be in the hands of those parole officers, and it will enable us to prioritize, correct me if I'm wrong here, the parolees that we need to watch more closely. Is that true? And if so, is there savings there? Are we going to be more effective in how we administer parole?
Speaker 139
1:39:20
What are your thoughts on that? Well, that's certainly my anticipation, my hope. The current risk assessment tool, risk and needs assessment tool that we are now utilizing, we just started utilizing in January. It is a much more extensive tool than the one previous, and, in fact, the one previous only dealt with risk. It wasn't a risk and needs assessment tool. This is both. And, again, we started using it officially in January, the first of January.
It is going to allow us to better determine who is high-risk and who is
Speaker 140
1:40:02
low-risk, which will then lead us to concentrate on those who are high- and medium-risk offenders as opposed to the low-risk offenders because research indicates
Speaker 139
1:40:14
that low-risk offenders are basically going to recidivate at about 6% no matter what you do unless you over-supervise them and then the recidivism rate actually goes up rather than down.
So my hope is that it's going to allow us to, and again, as long as we're provided the necessary resources in order to adequately meet the needs of those high and medium risk offenders, because that basically comes down to risk, need, and responsivity. And the responsivity is the hardest part because you can determine risk and need through a good tool. Then you may know their need and say, okay, how do we meet it?
And if you're unable to, then potentially you're not going to do anything to reduce that risk. And so, but the risk tool is the initial thing. I mean, all the principles of evidence-based practice say that that's the
Speaker 140
1:41:15
number, that's the base level thing. That's the foundational thing. You have
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
1:41:22
to determine risk and need. One more thing, and I'm sorry. It kind of builds on what Representative Hammer talks, and this would be an encouragement.
And you all know Jim Bell quite well, certainly over at DCC. And I want to applaud you, Mr. Eberhardt, for your involvement in inviting volunteers into your facilities to manage programs like AA and celebrate recovery and those things. Because I think, you know, look, that's money that we're not spending. Those are people who have a burning desire and passion to help people and to meet them where they are. My encouragement would be, and again, would even be to Director Hobbs, if moving forward, if we could begin to maybe open the doors of even some of our prisons to volunteers,
because I've talked to several people who are involved with this, and they say, we want to get in there. And my thing is, look, if they help out one person, they help out two people, and they help out someone to get them on a path to where they don't reoffend, You know, they don't end up back. I mean, what have we lost? We've lost nothing and we've gained something. So I want to applaud you very much. And I know you gentlemen have probably two of the hardest positions in state government, and I appreciate you very much. Representative Williams, I appreciate you very much.
And certainly the other gentlemen, the working group, the governor, all of you have gone out of your way to make this a very open process and listen to people. I
Speaker 25
1:42:55
thank you very much. Thank you, Representative Sanders. And as we near closing, Representative Collin Smith, you have a question. Thank you. I
Speaker 124
1:43:03
do have a question and a statement. One of the things that I guess is not
Speaker 10
1:43:09
really a question. I just want to say to you, remember in your efforts to cut costs,
to always put law-abiding citizens and their protection at the forefront. Don't cut that corner. because we have to vote on something that could ultimately hurt the people or not hurt the people. So do not cut those corners. And then I want to say thanks to you all for doing this. It took a lot of time. You've been working on this a long time, but you've given legislators an opportunity to come here today to ask the questions on everything you've been working on, hashing out, breaking down, putting it back together to be presented to us.
And it took a lot of effort. I thank you for answering my questions because there were not a lot of legislators here that may have actually asked some of those very questions that I did. And I thank you for your time, and I appreciate you. Thank
Speaker 230
1:44:01
you. Thank you. Representative Williams. Representative Collins-Smith, thank
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
1:44:04
you for that statement. And let me assure you and the rest of the members, if there are additional questions you have, we will be available. We have been meeting one-on-one with people. We've been meeting with small groups. If we need to, we've done conference calls with folks who are not available.
We will continue to do that until this bill is filed. It's my goal as carrying this bill for Speaker Moore that every one of your questions are answered. So when you have to take a vote on this bill, this is a very important subject. You will have all your questions answered, and you'll feel comfortable voting for this bill. And let me assure you, from day one, the first goal of the working group has always been to maintain public safety. Public safety has been paramount above cost, above everything else.
This bill, in our opinion, does just that. We're not cutting corners on public safety from the standpoint of cost. What the state's doing now, the state's this year will invest $350 million in its correction system, and the investment return that we're getting is very poor because our recidivant rates continue to be stubbornly high while the crime rate goes down. So we're not doing something right. And I would suggest that any legislator should question a program where you continue to invest more and more money but get a worse return.
And so that's why we looked at and continue to look at costs, but public safety
Speaker 25
1:45:31
is paramount in this program. All right. With that, Sheriff, Judge, thank you. Mr. Everhart, Mr. Hobbs, thank you. Brian, Jake, thank you. Representative Williams, we appreciate you. We are adjourned. Thank you.
Agenda
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Speaker 1
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
Speaker 10
Speaker 16
Speaker 20
Speaker 24
Speaker 25
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
Speaker 49
Speaker 52
Speaker 15
Speaker 56
Jerry Buck
Unverified
Speaker 65
Speaker 74
Speaker 81
Speaker 80
Speaker 99
Speaker 98
Speaker 100
Speaker 77
Speaker 105
Speaker 111
Representative Terry Rice
Unverified
Speaker 22
Speaker 120
Speaker 121
Speaker 123
Speaker 55
Speaker 137
Speaker 139
Speaker 142
Speaker 147
Speaker 140
Speaker 151
Speaker 152
Speaker 157
Speaker 163
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
Speaker 87
Speaker 170
Speaker 171
Speaker 183
Speaker 184
Speaker 186
Speaker 73
Speaker 193
Speaker 102
Speaker 190
Speaker 197
Speaker 201
Speaker 202
Speaker 203
Speaker 205
Speaker 207
Speaker 38
Representative David J. Sanders
Unverified
Speaker 216
Speaker 150
Speaker 126
Speaker 219
Speaker 148
Speaker 225
Speaker 146
Speaker 124
Speaker 230